Stephy Lijo vs Icici Bank Limited
2023 Latest Caselaw 11263 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                WP(C) NO. 34491 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         STEPHY LIJO,
         AGED 34 YEARS
         W/O. LIJO LONAPPAN, KANNANIAKAL HOUSE,
         NATTINPURAM VIA, MEDICAL COLLEGE, ATHANI,
         VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680596

         BY ADVS.
         ARJUN RAGHAVAN
         T.R.HARIKUMAR
         POOJA PANKAJ


RESPONDENTS:

    1    ICICI BANK LIMITED,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DELMA
         COMPLEX, OPP. CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,
         SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

    2    THE BRANCH MANAGER,
         ICICI BANK LIMITED, DELMA COMPLEX,
         OPP. CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, SHORANUR ROAD,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

         SRI.LAL K. JOSEPH, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP        FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.34491/2023
                                       :2:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.34491 of 2023

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

The petitioner and her husband availed a cash

credit facility of ₹58,37,000/- on 24.04.2020 from the

respondent-Bank. The residential property owned by the

petitioner's husband was mortgaged.

2. The petitioner states that on account of Covid-19

pandemic, the business of the petitioner's husband suffered

a downfall and they could not repay the loan amount in

prompt manner.

3. The respondents issued Ext.P2 notice under

Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002. The petitioner's husband approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.34491/2023

W.P.(C) No.2076 of 2021 seeking permission to pay the

overdue amount in installments, in order to get the loan

account regularised. This Court noted that the writ petition

has been pending consideration before this Court for two

years and the petitioner therein has not paid any amount

towards the loan account. This Court held that the Hon'ble

Apex Court has declared that the High Court shall not, unless

in extraordinary circumstances, interfere with the

proceedings initiated under the Act, 2002, in writ proceedings

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court

accordingly dismissed the writ petition as per Ext.P4

judgment.

4. The petitioner submits that the term loan is valid

up to 2048. If the petitioner's property is taken over and sold,

the petitioner will be thrown to streets. The petitioner is not

seeking to evade payment, but only seeking breathing time

by way of reasonable installments to save her house.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted W.P.(C) No.34491/2023

that the repayment to the loan account was persistently

defaulted and as of now the overdue amount itself would

come to more than ₹15,24,479/-. In the facts of the case, the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief. However, the Standing

Counsel submitted that if the petitioner makes a bulk

payment, then a reasonable time can be granted to pay off

the balance overdue amount in installments.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents

1 and 2.

7. The loan of ₹58,37,000/- was availed by the

petitioner along with her husband for business purpose in the

year 2020. The petitioner would submit that they were

making repayment promptly, but on account of Covid-19

pandemic, the business of the petitioner's husband suffered,

which has resulted in overdue arrears.

8. Be that as it may, it is seen that when the writ

petition came up for admission, this Court recorded the

undertaking of the petitioner that she is ready to remit ₹5 W.P.(C) No.34491/2023

lakhs within a week. It is submitted today that the said

amount has been paid as undertaken. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant a limited

time to the petitioner to clear off the overdue amounts

towards the loan account.

9. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the

following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall remit an

amount of ₹4 lakhs to the respondents

within a period of one month from today, i.e.

on or before 27.11.2023.

(ii) The balance overdue amount

along with accrued interest and other

administrative charges, if any, shall be paid

in ten consecutive equal monthly

installments, immediately thereafter.

(iii) If the petitioner commits any

default in payment as directed above, the

respondents will be at liberty to proceed W.P.(C) No.34491/2023

against the petitioner's property.

(iv) If the petitioner adheres to the

afore time schedule for payment of overdue

arrears, coercive proceedings, if any, shall

stand deferred.

               (v)    The current EMI amounts shall

        also     be     paid   along   with   the   afore

        installments.


                                                    Sd/-
                                          N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/27.10.2023
 W.P.(C) No.34491/2023




                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34491/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1              A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER DATED
                        24/02/2020
Exhibit P2              A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED

26/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/08/2023 IN WP(C) NO.20767/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT